outgoing_buy_requests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated beyond the existence of a page parameter, what order results are returned in, or whether authorization is required. The description identifies the resource but not the behavior surrounding it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the domain context, followed by the parameter note. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise enough to scan quickly, though additional behavioral context would have made it more useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list-style tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and mentions pagination. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the return shape, auth requirements, or pagination semantics such as page size or zero-indexing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the schema's lack of explanation. However, saying 'Optional: page (default 0)' merely restates what the schema already shows via default: 0 and the absence of required fields. It does not explain what page represents, how pagination works, or what values are valid.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource: escrow ('Buy with confidence') buy requests that the user has placed. The word 'outgoing' in the tool name and 'the user has placed' in the description make the scoping evident, though no explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' is used. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the domain-specific resource is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search, user, or sellers_list. It also omits prerequisites such as authentication, which would be relevant especially since check_auth is a sibling. The only usage hint is the optional page parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.